So it seems several groups have decided a boycott of Starbucks is in order today. What they want is Starbucks to decide, on a corporate level, that guns are not to be allowed on the company's property.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/

I wasn't able to find the counter-site, but it's been circulating on Facebook that gun owners are staging a "buy-cott" today. The idea is this: you go to the bank, get two dollar bills and go to Starbucks. I personally don't normally go to Starbucks. I think their coffee is way overpriced, but I am currently enjoying a pretentious "vente triple vanilla latte", purchased with two dollar bills.

Argh... I can't stand this:


Glock 9mm Semi-Automatic Pistol, the gun used by the Tucson Murderer. It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.Yes, the gun shot all those people. All by itself.

Trying to associate the Tucson tragedy with open carry is like trying to blame the Wright Brothers for our shuttle disasters.

Does anyone really need a gun to buy coffee?

I'm in full agreement on the vanilla latte though - they're fabulous!

Does anyone really need a gun to buy coffee?



It's an American thing. You wouldn't understand.

A

Trying to associate the Tucson tragedy with open carry is like trying to blame the Wright Brothers for our shuttle disasters.Well it has always worked; The Brady Bill.

Wouldn't the same group that is boycotting the Starbucks be the same people that would be pissed off about anyone else telling them what to do in their businesses or on their private property?

As I have my own espresso machine at home and work, I normally only do Starbucks when traveling. I made an exception today and my friend that worked there said they've had several people come in either open carrying, wearing gun t-shirts or paying in $2 bills.

Does anyone really need a gun to buy coffee?

I'm in full agreement on the vanilla latte though - they're fabulous!

It's more an "I carry in accordance with local, state and federal law" thing. I don't carry where I'm not supposed to, but there's little point in clearing out my holster in one more place. For example, I'm sitting in a college classroom at this very second with an empty holster. The firearm that goes in it is locked in my truck, out of sight and the firearm itself is locked. Off campus, because carry on college campuses is still illegal. (Although I disagree with that as well, as well as the carry requirements for my state, but that's for a different thread altogether.)

That and Starbuck's is private property. It's just like people picketing my house because they don't like the fact that I have guns. If Starbucks chooses to disallow CCW on their property, I'll respect that. But no one should be allowed to pressure them into making that decision. Especially if Starbuck's is like most other franchises: the property and building are owned by a person or corporation other than Starbuck's corporate and the brand is licensed by the franchise owner.

Wouldn't the same group that is boycotting the Starbucks be the same people that would be pissed off about anyone else telling them what to do in their businesses or on their private property?

Pretty much, yeah.

But no one should be allowed to pressure them into making that decision.

Then you are against free speech and freedom of association. Of course people should be allowed to organize boycotts (or buycotts) or picket a place or hand out flyers or make any demands they like of anyone they like. Anyone who doesn't think so is against freedom of speech and freedom of association.


Especially if Starbuck's is like most other franchises: the property and building are owned by a person or corporation other than Starbuck's corporate and the brand is licensed by the franchise owner.

Starbucks is not a franchise.

Since you guys are talking about two dollar bills, I thought I'd add at least my two cents.

It seems to me that so many gun control groups have become angry at Starbucks because (and keep in mind that they're one of the icons of the hippy west coast) they have sent out a clear message to the zomg eeevil gunz crowd:

That the issue of open carry should be taken to the state's legislature, and not a shop on private property whose rules are simply no more restrictive than the state's current ordinance on the issue.

Headed there in a few to have the future OWS protester (art history major) make me a convoluted latte in support of this.

Also, anyone arguing whether or not you "need" to be armed in public on a martial arts forum should probably shake their head about for a few minutes until the cognitive dissonance leaks out of his or her eardrums.

Then you are against free speech and freedom of association. Of course people should be allowed to organize boycotts (or buycotts) or picket a place or hand out flyers or make any demands they like of anyone they like. Anyone who doesn't think so is against freedom of speech and freedom of association.

 
I should have been more clear, I'm running on very little sleep today. Starbucks is private property. What other people think of their policies regarding their store should not matter one bit unless something illegal is going on there. Hence the point of buying things there today with two dollar bills. I'm not against the ignorant stating their opinion or complaining about carry laws. I'm against them actually succeeding in their misguided quest and pressuring a private corporation into restricting carry.

Edit: Got it! Don't like it, don't go there. Or move the hell out of a state that allows carry. (Hint. There's Illinois.) But don't go trying to curtail my rights in a roundabout way. That's bullshit.



Starbucks is not a franchise.

That's fair. I know dick-all about Starbuck's corporate structure. Except now that they're not franchises.

Edit: Awww hell. My brain is rebelling in my attempt to clarify.

I should have been more clear, I'm running on very little sleep today. Starbucks is private property. What other people think of their policies regarding their store should not matter one bit unless something illegal is going on there.

Any business or any other endeavor that doesn't take into account what various sections of the public will think of their various policies—for good or ill, whether we agree with them or not—is going to get into trouble at some point. That's just the nature of the marketplace.



I'm not against the ignorant stating their opinion or complaining about carry laws. I'm against them actually succeeding in their misguided quest and pressuring a private corporation into restricting carry.
That's fine. We're on the same side as regards this particular issue.


Edit: Got it! Don't like it, don't go there.Well, with the boycott, they aren't going there, see? Well, not for today anyway, which makes it a rather weak boycott. And they're suggesting that other people don't too. That's what freedom of speech and freedom of association are. You may not like this particular boycott, and I don't either, but that's different than saying that people shouldn't be allowed to hold boycotts or to pressure firms to do what they want. Your free speech alternative is what you've done—go out of your way to buy at Sbux in a way that signals your appreciation of their current policies. You could also start a website, have an open-carry drink-in to the extent Sbux allows you to sit in there drinking, hold a counter-protest ten times the size of any protest these anti-gun people have, or spend all day complaining on the Internet. That's freedom, baby!


But don't go trying to curtail my rights in a roundabout way. That's bullshit.You don't have any rights vis-a-vis Starbucks except for the usual ones (e.g., Starbucks can't say "The toilets are for white customers only.").

So it seems several groups have decided a boycott of Starbucks is in order today. What they want is Starbucks to decide, on a corporate level, that guns are not to be allowed on the company's property.


As much as I support responsible gun handling, what exactly will a corporate policy from Starbucks accomplish??


EDIT:

Ah, Wetware beat me to it.


What other people think of their policies regarding their store should not matter one bit unless something illegal is going on there. Hence the point of buying things there today with two dollar bills. I'm not against the ignorant stating their opinion or complaining about carry laws. I'm against them actually succeeding in their misguided quest and pressuring a private corporation into restricting carry.

My first thought was that the anti-gun crowd targeted Starbucks after this:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7248503